Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary looms large on the political horizon. In the midst of lively public debates over taxes, jobs, the national debt and similarly important questions related to the future vitality of our nation, a different kind of question continues to privately occupy the minds of some prospective voters: Can I vote for a Mormon?
This is an important question in our constitutional democracy. Without endorsing or even praising (much less criticizing) any candidate, I strongly encourage Americans who would ask this question of themselves to consider and weigh thoughtfully our nation’s constitutional traditions. At their best, those are traditions of welcoming religious forbearance.
To support this proposition, I return to the founding of our constitutional republic — boasting as we rightly do the oldest Constitution in the history of the planet. Only 27 amendments have been ratified to that basic document over our 222 years as a representative democracy. In fashioning this remarkably enduring document, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia made it absolutely clear that no religious test should ever be imposed to hold office. The Founders also made clear that religious dissenters (such as the Quakers) should not be compelled to take an oath if doing so would be a violation of conscience. Building on those twin pillars of tolerance, the Supreme Court at its finest moments has likewise vigorously defended the right of all persons to participate in the democratic process, including holding office, without the burden of religious tests or qualifications.
According to the American political tradition, there are essential questions by which all office seekers are qualified, regardless of their faith journey or history. The first is: Does the candidate subscribe completely to our constitutional structure, including freedom of conscience for persons of all faiths — or no faith? A second question for the thoughtful voter is related to and flows from the first: Will the candidate subscribe, without any “mental hesitation or purpose of evasion,” to the oath to protect and defend America’s Constitution? If the answers to those closely connected questions are yes, then voters should proceed to cast their ballot on the basis of the candidate’s qualifications, platform and policy positions — not the candidate’s membership (or lack thereof) in a particular faith community.
In fact, a number of great presidents have come to the White House without membership in any faith community. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist and was vigorously attacked for his religious views (or lack thereof). Abraham Lincoln, as a matter of conscience, refused to join any church. Yet our nation’s capital rightly dedicates two of its most stately monuments to those two men of unorthodox spiritual worldviews.
More recently, the great cultural chasm between Catholics and Protestants was politically overcome with the election of John F. Kennedy. Similarly, then-Vice President Al Gore’s choice of Sen. Joe Lieberman, a practicing Jew, as his running mate in 2000 signaled the welcoming openness of America’s democratic experience to individuals who did not share the Christian faith but were honorable statesmen of steely commitment to America’s constitutional principles.
In my own life, I have drawn great strength from my religious practices and, according to the teachings of my faith tradition, I intend to continue to keep in prayer those who are chosen to lead our nation. That said, the litmus for our elected leaders must not be the church they attend but the Constitution they defend.
Citizens as voters do well when they pause to reflect on our nation’s history and traditions. If an unbeliever such as Jefferson or non-churchman like Lincoln can serve brilliantly as president, then America should stand — in an intolerant world characterized all too frequently by religious persecution — as a stirring example of welcoming hospitality for highly qualified men and women of good will seeking the nation’s highest office. Life experience, personal qualities and policy views are the pivotal points to guide Americans as they go to the polls in 2012.
Ken Starr, a former special prosecutor, is president of Baylor University.
Most ironic that Ken Starr,whose fanatic prosecution of Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinski affair nearly destroyed Clinton’s progressive Presidency, should suddenly be so fair-minded re current candidates’ religious beliefs. Also ironic is the repeated hostility of his Baylor University to faculty, existing or prospective, who deviate from Baylor’s extreme Baptist beliefs.
Yes, Ken Starr is a strange messenger for this message of tolerance!
He says, correctly, that Thomas Jefferson was a Deist. Jefferson was baptized as an Anglican (Episcopalian), but was accused of atheism when he ran for President. He believed that God created the universe but, after creating the laws of nature, does not suspend those laws or interfere miraculously in our world. As president, he took scissors and cut all the miracles out of the four gospels, pasting back together what he called “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth,” without any virgin birth, resurrection, walking on water, casting demons into pigs, etc. In the last year of his life he said he was a Unitarian (the Unitarians don’t accept the doctrine of the Trinity or the divinity of Jesus).
Similarly, Lincoln — who joined no church — said, “When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion.”
We still hear Obama’s opponents complain about Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where Obama once belonged, and Rev. Wright, their former pastor. And the right-wingers still hint that Obama is not a Christian at all.
And many fundamentalists are unwilling to consider Mormons to be a type of Christian.
But Ken Starr was right, the Constitution lets us know that the Founding Fathers were more tolerant — saying there shall be no religious test for political office, and allowing presidents to either “swear or affirm” the oath of office, thus making the presidential oath religion-neutral.
A surprisingly good essay from Ken Starr!
Ironic but admirable.
Just wondering if people would not consider it important if the candidate was, say, a Muslim?
I don’t particularly care about a candidate’s religion or lack thereof, but to people who consider religious faith the center of their life, of course the faith tradition of their candidate matters a lot. And the freedom of religion that is enshrined on our Constitution protects and supports their right to base their vote on a candidate’s religion.
It is important if the person were Muslim, if that belief influences policy. Think about it, gay marriage, abortion… how many other issues are there that the people against them have nothing but a religious argument? When a gay marriage bill comes before a governor or president, it will be those religious beliefs that will have them either signing or vetoing it. I have no problem with people having whatever faith they want. Heck if you want to paint your face with chicken blood and dance naked in your back yard to please the fertility gods, go for it, but when you run for public office, those beliefs you hold will affect people that do not share those same beliefs. But please don’t pretend someone’s beliefs are not an important factor when deciding to vote for them or not.
Of course a voter should take a candidates religious beliefs in to account before voting for them. Why would a gay person, a pro choice-er, or an Atheist vote for a Christian who is going to do everything they can to demean them and treat them as second class citizens. A persons beliefs are molded by their religion, and if you want my vote as a candidate you have to show that those tyrannical, prejudice, and hateful beliefs of Christianity can be put aside so you will do what is best for the nation, not just your god. Kennedy did an excellent job of separating his Catholic beliefs from how he ran this country. Where as George “God wanted me to be President” Bush… not so much
This article underscores the miscalculation of the GOP and its effects on the electorate. By making elections and politics about “wedge issues” for so many years, when they chose to run a more traditional campaign, the voters still have God and so-called values on their minds. Further, they really sharply defined protestant christianity as the requirement for candidates. Now this all comes to a head in 2012. Romney has been grooming himself (quite a bit it seems, hehe) for this run for two decades. Twenty years ago he would have been a great candidate with vast popular appeal. Now he hits a ceiling at about 40ish percent of the GOP electorate. This is due to his being Mormon above all else. After decades of showy and superficial photo ops in front of churches and “values” oriented groups, the ability to run on one’s merits without reference to ones religion are gone.
When the deists who founded this country and penned its constitution contemplated a separation of church and state, they did so because they understood that religion can be used to manipulate the masses and result in our national best interests being subordinate to the zeal of religious interests.
Now we have an electorate incapable of electing a non-Christian. A weak leader with strong christian ideals is actually more electable than a strong leader with little or no religious affiliation. That move away from our core and guiding principles will carry a cost to us. Maybe this time we will learn anew the value of the separation doctrine and stop asking the God question to begin with.
Excellent (even if surprising) column in direct opposition to the column by Gary Bauer, “Why Voters Should Apply a Religious Test” (USA Today, 1/9/12, p. 9A). The latter is flagarantly anti-Cosntitutional.